Commentary: Overview

The writing of commentaries has been and contin- studies, however, it has led to a certain neglect of ues to be one of the fundamental literary activities of commentarial literature due to a mistaken assump- Buddhists everywhere. For more than two thousand tion of lack of creativity (Kramer, 2013). In the years, going back to the earliest days of the tradition, Buddhist world as in the Latin world, the 5th cen- commentaries have been used to learn and teach tury marks the consolidation of earlier exegetical the words of the Buddha, to transmit their form and material into comprehensive commentaries on content faithfully, and to systematize and develop which following generations of scholars built. In Buddhist doctrine. parallel with these “literary” commentaries, the pro- A commentary can be defined as a sustained duction of “curricular” commentaries rooted in an textual mediation of the meaning and form of a instructional setting and based on either teachers’ culturally significant root text, or more simply the or students’ notes continued to be a powerful force “continuous explication of text” (Guthmüller, 2013), throughout the history of Buddhism (Ganeri, 2011, to distinguish it from the more localized and occa- 113–114; Krasser, 2011). Some of these curricular com- sional type of explication represented by glosses. At mentaries were elaborated and crossed over into the the same time, the very word “commentary” indi- literary tradition; others remained ephemeral, yet cates, for the Western European tradition, a gradual formed and continue to form the backbone of local evolution from glosses into the new literary genre of Buddhist instruction (McDaniel, 2008, 191–204). commentary: Latin commentarium originally meant “collection of notes (commenta)” (OED, 2012, s.v.; the same relationship holds between the Indian terms Principles and Classification vārttika and vṛtti). It took until the 5th century ce for such notes to develop into the first full‐fledged com- The main subgenres of Buddhist commentary are mentary (Servius’s commentary on Virgil), and by the following: the 12th century, Latin commentaries had become 1. lexical and grammatical explanation of the the “most important form of scholarly literature” in language of their root texts; Europe (Guthmüller, 2013). What we have is thus 2. scholastic, philosophical, and juridical elabo- a development from paratext to an independent ration of their root texts’ content; and work that stands in a truly intertextual relationship 3. narrative explanation of root texts that could with its root text, with which it may engage selec- develop a life of its own (as with the explana- tively and in a topical order of its own choice. Early tory background narratives that have been Buddhist commentaries not only performed the added separately to the Pali and Chinese ver- same task of continuous explication as the Latin sions of the Dharmapada verse collection). commenta but also served as a tool for the rational While any given commentary can be categorized as organization of the teachings of the Buddha col- primarily belonging to one of these subgenres, com- lected in the early Buddhist canons. From the very mentaries often combine characteristics of more beginning, this organization entailed differences of than one subgenre. A basic categorization of the opinion and organizational principles among vari- services provided by Buddhist commentaries would ous authorities. In the course of time, Buddhist com- consist of linguistic and factual explanation, textual mentators gradually assumed a voice of their own criticism (discussing variant readings), and higher and developed original doctrinal and philosophical criticism. That is, commentaries attempt to explain systems, while keeping to the literary form of com- terms, provide information on allusions, and so on; mentary. This strategy allowed them to assert conti- or they offer textual information (this may overlap nuity with their tradition, while the different layers with the first category, e.g. if a term is replaced); of root text and commentary facilitated the use of or a commentary may reflect on the meaning and complex argument structures (Slaje, 2007, 73–74; message of a text or elucidate its underlying, sal- Ganeri, 2011, 114–115); in the history of Buddhist vifically relevant meaning, which often involves the

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2015 BEB, vol. I Also available online – www.brill 410 Commentary: Overview ­collection, discussion, and refutation of different on interpretation, the Vyākhyāyukti (Princi­ples authoritative opinions. of Exegesis; c. 5th cent.), as (1) establishment The Buddhist traditions of India developed their of the purpose of the commentary (prayojana), own formulations of the principles and purposes of (2) statement of the overall meaning (piṇḍārtha), commentarial activity. The Catuṣpratisaraṇasūtra (3) explanation of the meanings of words (padārtha), (Discourse on the Four Resorts), extant in several (4) demonstration of connections with other Sanskrit versions and in Chinese, lays down the Buddhist texts and elements of Buddhist doctrine following four “resorts” for the commentator: the (anusaṃdhi), and (5) refutation of objections teaching itself (dharma) should be followed, not (codyaparihāra), building on a similar list in the the person of any particular teacher (puruṣa); the Vivaraṇasaṃgrahaṇī chapter of the Yogācārabhūmi meaning (artha) of the teaching should be followed, (Nance, 2012, 105–120, 167–212). This Buddhist list not its specific formulation (vyañjana); teachings of five terms resembles (and possibly inspired) a with clear meaning (nītārtha) should be followed more general conception of the services of a clas- rather than those whose meaning needs establishing sical Indian literary or scholastic commentary that (neyārtha); and direct knowledge (jñāna) should be persisted into modern times. One may compare followed rather than discursive knowledge (vijñāna; for instance the enumeration of five exegetical Lamotte, 1949; Davidson, 1990). services in a verse quoted in the 19th‐century com- This early canonical set of four “resorts” partly pendium Nyāyakośa (Treasury of Nyāya Philoso- overlaps with four kinds of “discrimination” that the phy; Jhaḷakîkar, 1893): padaccheda (word division), Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra (Discourse Resolving Diffi- padārthokti (stating the meaning of words), vigraha culties; c. 3rd cent. ce) presents as characteristic of (compound resolution), vākyayojanā (construal of the communicative abilities of a bodhisattva (and sentences), ākṣepasamādhāna (answering of objec- thus to be imitated by the ideal commentator): dis- tions; Tubb & Boose, 2007, 3–5). crimination (pratisaṃvid) concerning the words of As Buddhist commentarial literature developed, the teaching (dharma), the meaning of the teaching a broad range of terminology came into use to dis- (artha), linguistic shape (nirukti), such as dialectal tinguish (at least for us today not always clearly) differences, and lucidity (pratibhāna; Nance, 2012, between types and subtypes of commentaries. The 59–60). The first two of these abilities are prerequi- earliest types of Buddhist commentary are called sites for understanding the word of the Buddha, the vibhaṅga and nirdeśa. The Sanskrit tradition of other two for communicating it to any given audi- mainland India knows the terms bhāṣya (with ence. A special case of the latter is the translation of which comp. Patañjali’s grammatical commentary Buddhist scriptures into non‐Indian languages, and Mahābhāṣya [Great Commentary]; c. 2nd cent. bce), some commentaries were composed to serve pre- vyākhyā, vṛtti, vivaraṇa, ṭīkā, and more. The Pali tra- cisely this purpose (e.g. the Udānavargavivaraṇa; dition of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia developed a Explanation of the Chapters of Inspired Utterances; different set of terms: aṭṭhakathā, ṭīkā, atthayojanā, see below). gaṇṭhipadavivaraṇa, and others. Looking beyond The twin exegetical concerns with dharma and Buddhism, the various layers of Jaina commentarial artha have an echo in the modern scholarly distinc- literature present a similar mixture of pan‐Indian tion between Textpflege and Sinnpflege (“curation of and specific terminology: bhāsa, nijjutti, and cuṇṇi text” and “curation of meaning”; comp. Freiberger, for Prakrit commentaries and vṛtti and ṭīkā for 2000, 24, adopting terminology from Assmann & Sanskrit commentaries (Balbir, 2009, 48–53; for the Assmann, 1987). The third term in the modern classi- terminology of Sanskrit philosophical literature, see fication of commentarial purposes – Zensur, the dis- also Ganeri, 2011, 103). This general situation is mir- tinction between authentic and unauthentic texts rored in European humanist and Renaissance com- and the establishment of a canon – likewise consti- mentaries: “very many terms applied to [them], not tutes a traditional Buddhist concern, as reflected for always displaying any clear distinction . . . (commen- instance in the Mahāpadeśasūtra (Great Discourse tarius, interpretatio, enarratio, expositio, explicatio, on Criteria [for Authenticity]; Lamotte, 1947; David- adnotationes, glossae, scholia etc.)” (Guthmüller, 2013). son, 1990). Over time, particularly important canonical texts The specific methods employed by commen- attracted whole clusters of commentaries. These taries to accomplish these aims are enumer- may be considered “commentarial complexes,” ated in Vasubandhu’s very influential reflection because the multiple layers of commentaries and Commentary: Overview 411 subcommentaries cross‐reference and shed light on ing it himself (as described in the introduction of each other. Moreover, such complexes are socially the discourse; D III 209 in the Pali version). Another recognized, since several would typically be used example is the Bhaddeka­rattasuttanta (Discourse together in teaching and scriptural study. Examples on an Excellent Single Night) – preserved in the of such complexes that have received recent schol- Pali Majjhimanikāya (Middle‐Length­ Collection, arly attention are the commentaries on the Pali nos. 131–134) – the teaching of which the Buddha Brahmajālasuttanta (Discourse on the Religious partially delegated to Ānanda and Mahākassapa. Net; Bodhi, 1978), the Pali Dhammapada (Word of The text is divided into uddesa (exposition) and the Doctrine; Carter & Palihawadana, 1987), the vibhaṅga (explication), using the technical termi- Heart Sūtra (Lopez, 1988), and the Śālistambasūtra nology of early Buddhist exegesis (von Hinüber, 1996, (Discourse on the Rice Stalk; Schoening, 1995). A 33). We may view these as (successful) attempts to uniquely elaborate case of a commentarial complex canonize certain commentarial acts, attributed to is the Pali aṭṭhakathā and ṭīkā literature, a carefully the Buddha’s closest disciples but possibly executed planned enterprise commenting on the entirety of by later individuals or groups who will remain for- the Pali canon (Bond, 1982; Mori, 1984; see below). ever unknown. Three non‐Buddhist traditions also appear to have influenced the development of Buddhist com- The Early Period mentarial genres. The Pali Khandhaka (Chapters [on Discipline]), the explanation of ritual rules for The earliest Buddhist commentaries were collec- Buddhist monks and nuns, may have been modeled tions of occasional (and originally oral) glosses (see on the explanation of Brahmanical ritual rules in the below on the Suttaniddesa [Explanation of the Dis- ­pre-Buddhist brāhmaṇa (“Brahmanical”) literature courses], commonly called Niddesa) and the early (von Hinüber, 1996, 17–18). The jātaka (stories of the Chinese scripture commentaries. In some cases, previous births of the Buddha) genre – the embed- such glosses also provided the raw material for the ding of canonical verses in a narrative framework gradual expansion of the root texts themselves by explaining the verses – appears to be indebted to the means of synonym strings and insertion of literary ākhyāna (legend) type of literature, likewise going clichés. A case in point is the observable evolution back to the early Vedic period (von Hinüber, 1996, of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā (Perfection 56–57). And finally, the Buddhist scholastic practice of Understanding in Eight Thousand Lines) from of an author writing prose commentaries on his own its earliest accessible version in Gandhari language succinct technical treatises follows the procedure of through the exemplar of Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese Brahmanical sūtra literature in technical fields such translation into the transmitted Sanskrit text (Falk as grammar (Schoening, 1995, 111–113; Ganeri, 2011, & Karashima, 2012; 2013), in the process of which the 112–116). text grew through such, at times seemingly mechan- The earliest example of a vibhaṅga (explica- ical, explanatory expansions. tion) outside the collection of the Buddha’s dis- Another starting point for the Buddhist genre of courses is the Suttavibhaṅga commentary on the commentary were the root texts – mythologically Prātimokṣasūtra (Binding Discourse), the funda- speaking, the word of the Buddha – themselves mental rules of conduct for Buddhist monks and since “the sūtra discourses comment on the Bud- nuns, which is preserved in Pali and Sanskrit ver- dha’s insights and the path” (Mayer, 2004, 166). As sions and in Chinese, Tocharian, and Tibetan trans- the tradition presents the myth of scripture produc- lations. The second early Buddhist commentary tion, in the course of his long teaching career, the type, nirdeśa (explanation), is characterized by its Buddha formulated the same insights in different concern with synonyms for central doctrinal terms, ways for different audiences, in effect providing dif- collecting them into mnemonic building blocks or ferent commentarial angles on the same topic. Occa- mapping among them. The two main examples of sionally, the Buddha delegated the explication of his this genre are the Pali Suttaniddesa (Explanation of teaching to one of his closest disciples, moving the the Discourses) attributed to Śāriputra (see below) textual product one step closer to being a commen- and the Gandhari verse commentaries that refer to tary. The best‐known example is the recitation of the themselves as a nirdeśa of sūtra (see below). Saṃgītisūtra (Discourse on the Recital) by Śāriputra After the Pali Suttavibhaṅga and Suttaniddesa, when back pain prevented the Buddha from teach- which preserve very early material, the oldest 412 Commentary: Overview preserved Buddhist commentaries are three Gan­ century Chinese translation Yinchiru jing (陰持入經; dhari commentaries on early Buddhist verses and Commentary on the Discourse on Aggregates, one on the Saṃgītisūtra. Moreover, in contrast Elements, and Spheres; T. 603) as a version of the to the Pali texts, which reach us after centuries of Suttatthasamuccaya (Summary of the Meaning redaction and copying, the Gandhari commentaries of the Discourses) chapter of the Peṭakopadesa were discovered in birchbark manuscripts from the (Zacchetti, 2002a; see below). When one further 1st century ce and are thus very close to their auto- takes into consideration the untraced quotations graphs, and possibly even autographs themselves. from an Indian exegetical manual called Pile (毘 These manuscripts owe their survival to the fact that 勒; Piṭaka [Master]) in the ­5th-century Da zhidu lun they – together with dozens of other Buddhist texts (大智度論; Great Treatise on the Perfection of on birchbark scrolls – were carefully deposited in Understanding; T. 1509; Zacchetti, 2002b; see below), clay pots and other vessels in the arid region that the following scenario seems likely: the method of is now northern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan categorial reduction and related exegetical proce- (Baums, 2014a, 208–213). Their unique importance dures flourished in northwestern India, where we lies in providing firsthand unmediated evidence for see them employed in the Gandhari commentary the state and craft of Buddhist commentary writing manuscripts and where they were probably set out in this very early period, while the loss of compa- in a number of manuals. The early Chinese trans- rable early commentaries elsewhere testifies to the lators took an interest in these methods, translat- ephemeral nature of this type of text. ing and quoting from some of the Piṭaka manuals, The verse commentaries contain selections of whereas the Theravāda tradition collected and verses from the Dharmapada or Udāna (Inspired translated them in the Pali Peṭakopadesa, reworked Utterances), the Arthavarga (Chapters on Mean- their content in the Nettippakaraṇa (Guidebook; ing), the Pārāyaṇa (Going to the Far Shore), and Ñāṇamoli, 1962), and employed some of their meth- other canonical sources. Each section is introduced ods in the aṭṭhakathās. This method of categorical by the first quarter of the verse in question, followed reduction (or mapping) may have a historical echo by the formula sutro tatra ṇideśo (Skt. sūtraṃ tatra in the ­short-lived early Chinese exegetical method nirdeśaḥ; “[thus] the canonical text; the explana- of geyi (see below). tion on it [is as follows]”), indicating a relationship The Gandhari Saṃgītisūtra commentary with the exegetical tradition represented by the Pali employs the same method of categorial reduction Suttaniddesa, which is also borne out by some as the Gandhari verse commentaries, with many shared material. of the same target doctrinal categories. It adds a The main service provided by the verse commen- second level of reduction by mapping each set of taries is, however, a procedure of “categorial reduc- ten complete commentary sections to the Four tion” (Baums, 2014b), whereby the parts of each Truths (satya) or the Three Courses (vartman) in verse are systematically equated with the members special summary sections. Another prominent of sets of doctrinal categories, such as the three service, introducing most commentary sections of sources (nidāna) lust (rāga), hate (dveṣa), and delu- the Saṃgītisūtra commentary, is the etymological sion (moha) or the three categories (skandha) virtue explanation of the root text’s doctrinal terms. The (śīla), concentration (samādhi), and understand- order of root terms in the Gandhari commentary ing (prajñā). A very similar procedure (employing a corresponds almost perfectly to that of the Chinese distinct but overlapping set of categories) is taught translation of the Saṃgītisūtra in the Chang ahan in the Nayasamuṭṭhāna (Operation of Guidelines) jing (長阿含經; Discourses of the Long Collection; T. chapter of the Pali exegetical manual Peṭakopadesa 1), suggesting an affiliation with the Dharmaguptaka (Instruction for the Piṭaka Master; Ñāṇamoli, school (Salomon, 1999, 171–173). 1964; Baums, 2014b, 35) and exemplified in the A prominent feature of both the Gandhari verse Hārasampāta (Combined Exegesis) chapter of the commentaries and the Gandhari Saṃgītisūtra com- same work. This text thus seems to occupy a very mentary is their systematic collection and presenta- important place in the history of Buddhist commen- tion of alternative interpretations for the same part tary. Linguistic features of the Pali Peṭakopadesa of the root text, sometimes simply introduced by (including the peculiar form of its title) suggest the expression “alternatively,” in other cases attrib- that it was translated into Pali from a northwest- uted to “some” or “others.” No preference is usually ern language such as Gandhari, a conjecture that is expressed for any of these alternatives, other than strengthened by the identification of An Shigao’s 2nd‐ possibly by the order in which they are presented. Commentary: Overview 413 This stands in contrast to another group of Gandhari texts, an understanding reflected by the title of scholastic treatises, such as a commentary on or dis- the Theravāda Abhidharma work Vibhaṅga. We cussion of the Dhātuvibhaṅgasūtra (Discourse on have the complete canonical Abhidharma collec- the Explication of the Elements) and especially an tions of the Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda schools independent treatise on existence in the three times and individual works by other schools such as the (British Library Fragment 28; Cox, 2014, 43-46). Both Dharmaguptaka. Formally, the Sarvāstivāda canoni- of these point the way to the later flourishing in cal Abhidharma work Saṃgītiparyāya is a com- Gandhara and Kashmir of polemical commentaries mentary on the Saṃgītisūtra (Willemen, Dessein & and other scholastic works in Sanskrit (see below). Cox, 1998, 67–68), and the Theravāda Kathāvatthu We know very little about early Buddhist com- appears to have in turn presupposed its own explan- mentarial traditions in the regional languages atory commentary, now lost (von Hinüber, 1996, 72). other than those preserved in Gandhari and Pali. The Sarvāstivāda canonical Abhidharma trea- A body of commentaries in Old Sinhalese language tises in turn attracted a very lively commentarial was reworked into the Pali aṭṭhakathās and subse- activity, the several layers and summaries of which quently lost, and the Pali commentaries refer to lost provided the formal framework for the develop- commentaries of the South Indian Andhaka school ment of Sarvāstivāda thought. Fragments of the (von Hinüber, 1996, 101–102, 104–105). Prakaraṇabhāṣya (Commentary on [the Treatise on] Similarly, few Sanskrit commentaries on the Topics), an early commentary on the Prakaraṇapāda early Buddhist canon have come down to us in (Treatise on Topics), were found on the northern the form of manuscript fragments, and our knowl- Silk Road (Sander, 1981, 65–66). In Kashmir, a tradi- edge of commentarial activity in this area remains tion of writing scholastic compendia called vibhāṣā, incomplete. The remnants of a Buddhist monastic all formally commentaries on the Jñānaprasthāna library discovered at Bamiyan include fragments (System of Knowledge), flourished and reached of a Dharmapada commentary (now preserved in its last and most comprehensive expression in the the Schøyen Collection), and a number of Sanskrit Mahāvibhāṣā (Great Commentary), allegedly com- fragments from the northern Silk Road (including piled and redacted at a Buddhist council convened SHT, fragment 922; Sander, 1981, 66) contain com- by the emperor Kaniṣka in the 2nd century ce; the mentarial material on the Udānavarga (Chapters of Mahāvibhāṣā became the foundational text of the Inspired Utterances). It is possible that these Vaibhāṣika school of Sarvāstivāda scholasticism commentaries – like the earlier Gandhari commen- (Willemen, Dessein & Cox, 1998, 116–121). At the same taries on the same root texts – served pedagogical time in Gandhara, the development of Sarvāstivāda purposes in the training of Buddhist novices who thought found expression in a series of system- had memorized the verses that now functioned as atic compendia including Dharmaśreṣṭhin’s (or vehicles for doctrinal explication. A later Sanskrit Dharmottara’s) *Abhidharmahṛdayaśāstra (Treatise commentary on the Udānavarga is Prajñāvarman’s on the Heart of Scholasticism; T. 1550), Upaśānta’s 8th‐century Udānavargavivaraṇa, produced to sup- *Abhidharmahṛdayaśāstra (Treatise on the Heart port the translation of the Udānavarga root text into of Scholasticism; T. 1551), and Dharmatrāta’s Tibetan and now itself only preserved in Tibetan *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdayaśāstra (Mixed Trea- translation (Balk, 1988). tise on the Heart of Scholasticism; T. 1281; all three only preserved in Chinese translation). The lit- erary form of the last of these – a verse root text Consolidation and Handbooks arranged by topic and combined with an autocom- mentary – was adopted by Vasubandhu (5th cent. As commentaries and subcommentaries prolifer- ce) in his Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, which presents ated in Indian Buddhism, the need arose for syn- orthodox Vaibhāṣika doctrine in the root text and thetic treatments of Buddhist doctrine. The first subjects it to Sautrāntika criticism in the com- large‐scale attempt at such systematization were mentary. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya became the the Abhidharma (scholastic) treatises of the early most successful handbook of Indian Abhidharma Buddhist schools, which use many of the same tech- and served in translation as the fundamental scho- niques as the earlier commentaries (von Hinüber, lastic compendium throughout Tibet and East 1996, 68) and in many respects can be regarded as Asia, down to today, and was also translated into a special kind of commentary on the entire body Tocharian and Uighur (Sander, 1981, 66). The main of the Buddha’s teaching rather than on individual subcommentaries on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 414 Commentary: Overview are Yaśomitra’s Sphuṭārthābhidharmakośavyākhyā imately 120 Indian Mahāyāna sūtra commentaries (Commentary on the Treasury of Scholasticism are known to have been translated into Tibetan. Having Clear Meaning; Wogihara, 1932–1936) and There are 34 Mahāyāna sūtras in the Kanjur (Trans- Sthiramati’s Tattvārthābhidharmakośaṭīkā (Commen­ lation of the Word [of the Buddha]) that have cor- tary on the Treasury of Scholasticism Having True responding commentaries in the Tanjur, including Meaning; a Sanskrit manuscript of this text has eight sūtras from the Prajñāpāramitā section and 25 recently been rediscovered in Tibet). Śamathadeva’s other Mahāyāna sūtras. At least 20 commentar- Abhidharmakośopāyikā (Companion to the Trea- ies in the Tanjur are subcommentaries on the sury of Scholasticism; D 4094/P 5595; Honjō, 1984; Abhisamayālaṃkāra Prajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstra for a complete annotated translation, see Honjō, 2014) (Instructional Treatise on the Perfection of Under- collects the numerous canonical citations and allu- standing [Called] Ornament of Intuition; Schoen- sions of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya as an aid to the ing, 1996, 115–116), a systematizing verse summary of, reader; Dignāga’s Marmapradīpābhidharmakośavṛtti probably, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā (Commentary on the Treasury of Scholasticism (Perfection of Understanding in 25,000 Lines; Conze, Illuminating the Core; only preserved in Tibetan 1978, provides a comprehensive overview of the translation; D 4095/P 5596) is a summary of the Prajñāpāramitā commentarial literature in India Abhidharmakośa, and the manual Abhidharmadīpa and Tibet). Examples of other Mahāyāna sūtra (Illuminator of Scholasticism) with the autocom- commentaries influential either in East Asia or in mentary Vibhāṣāprabhāvṛtti (Commentary Illu- Tibet are Vasubandhu’s *Daśabhūmikasūtropadeśa minating the [Great] Commentary; Jaini, 1977) (Instruction on [the Discourse on] the Ten Planes; appears to have been written in response to the T. 1522), or *Daśabhūmikabhāṣya (Commentary on Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. [the Discourse on] the Ten Planes), Sthiramati’s According to the introductions of the Theravāda Akṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā (Commentary on the Explana­ Abhidharma commentaries Atthasālinī (Rich in tion of Akṣayamati; Braarvig, 1993), and Vīryaśrīdatta’s Meaning), Sammohavinodanī (Dispeller of Delusion), Arthaviniścayasūtranibandhana (Treatise on the and Pañcappakaraṇaṭṭhakathā (Commentary on Discourse Discussing the Meaning; Samtani, 1971). Five Works), the famous commentator Buddhaghosa It is nonetheless curious that relatively speaking, initiated their production in the 4th or 5th century Mahāyāna sūtras were apparently infrequently ce, which means that he did not write them himself commented on in India; in East Asia, however, we (von Hinüber, 1996, 149–153). A certain Ānanda of witness a positive efflorescence of sūtra commentar- Kalasapura and his pupil Dhammapāla produced ies, with especially importance given to doctrinally sets of subcommentaries on the Abhidharma com- or ritually significant texts such as the Saddharma­- mentaries in the 5th and 6th centuries ce (or later; puṇḍarīkasūtra (Lotus Discourse), Sukhāva­tīvyūha von Hinüber, 1996, 166–170). Theravāda Abhidharma (Larger Pure Land Discourse), Mahāvairocanasūtra commentaries continued to be written into the (Great Discourse on Vairocana), and the like. modern period (von Hinüber, 1996, 149n513). Eventually, these growing bodies of Buddhist With the rise of Mahāyāna Budhism sometime commentaries and subcommentaries demanded a around the turn of the new millennium, and the further synthesis in the form of comprehensive, sys- corresponding production of Mahāyāna sūtras, tematic handbooks. The classical age for such hand- came a new production of commentaries as well. books were the 4th and 5th centuries ce, prominent A retrospective overview of Indian Mahāyāna com- examples being Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga mentaries can be gleaned from the Tibetan trans- (Path of Purity) for the Theravāda tradition, the lation catalogues and extant translation corpus Abhisamayālaṃkāra (Ornament of Intuition) for (Schoening, 1996). The Lhan kar ma catalog (early the Prajñāpāramitā literature, and Vasubandhu’s 9th cent. ce) lists 51 titles in its section on commen- Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Commentary on the Trea- taries on Mahāyāna sūtras, and another 8 titles in sury of Scholasticism) for Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma. its section on sūtra commentaries translated from Such handbooks could be designed to help in the Chinese. Approximately 30 of these commentaries production of a set of commentaries (as with the are lost and only known from the catalogue. Taking Visuddhimagga and the Pali aṭṭhakathās), or they these together with the 90 translations of Mahāyāna could themselves give rise to a second wave of com- sūtra commentaries that are preserved in the mentaries (as with the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya or Tanjur (Translation of Teachings), a total of approx- Abhisamayālaṃkāra and their subcommentaries). Commentary: Overview 415 Philosophical Commentaries on the Distinction of the Middle and the Extremes) on the Madhyāntavibhāga (Distinction of the Mid- In the case of the Indian Buddhist philosophical dle and the Extremes) attributed to Maitreyanātha. schools, commentaries likewise served as the pri- He also wrote a commentary on his older brother mary literary form for the back and forth of discus- Asaṅga’s compendium Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Sum- sion and the exposition of arguments. The primary mary of Mahāyāna) and followed the expository root‐text reference for the unfolding of Madhyamaka strategy of root text with autocommentary in his philosophical discussion was Nāgārjuna’s (Prajñānāma) Viṃśatikā (Twenty [Verses]). Similarly, the famous Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Root Verses on the Middle commentator Sthiramati (c. 510–570 ce) is alleged to Way [Called Understanding]). The Akutobhayā (Fear- have written a Mahāyāna sūtra commentary in the less), attributed to Nāgārjuna himself and translated Akṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā (see above) and commen- into Chinese by Kumārajīva in 409 ce (T. 1564) and taries and subcommentaries on his recent prede- into Tibetan by Jñānagarbha and Klu’i rgyal mtshan, cessors’ work in the Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣya and Buddhapālita’s Mūlamadhyamakavṛtti (Root (Commentary on the Summary of Scholasticism; Commentary on the Middle Way) are two important engaging with Asaṅga) and Triṃśikāvijñaptibhāṣya early commentaries on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. (Commentary on the 30 [Verses] on Consciousness) Bhāviveka (c. 500–570 ce) used his commentary and Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā (Commentary on the Prajñāpradīpa (Illuminator of Understanding) on Distinction of the Middle and the Extremes; both the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā for a critique of responding to Vasubandhu). Here as so often in the Buddhapālita, and in his Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā history of Indian literature, it is possible that some (Verses on the Heart of the Middle Way) with the commentaries by other authors have been retro- autocommentary Tarkajvālā (Flame of Reasoning), spectively associated with Sthiramati’s name. he defended the Madhyamaka standpoint against In the logico‐epistemological school of Buddhism, an array of Buddhist and non‐Buddhist oppo- Dharmakīrti (7th cent. ce) employed the root‐text/ nents. Candrakīrti (c. 600–650 ce) composed the autocommentary strategy in his Pramāṇavārtti­ Prasannapadā (Clear-Worded), another preemi- kasvavṛtti (Autocommentary on the Commentary on nent commentary on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the Means of Knowledge), the first part of his and further engaged with Nāgārjuna’s thought in Pramāṇavārttika (Commentary on the Means of the Śūnyatāsaptativṛtti (Commentary on the 70 Knowledge) on Dignāga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya (Com- [Verses] on Emptiness) and the Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti ­pendium of the Means of Knowledge). The combined (Commentary on the 60 Principles), in addition to work attracted subcommentaries by Karṇakagomin writing a commentary on Āryadeva’s Catuḥśataka (Pramāṇavārttikasvavṛttiṭīkā [Commentary on (Four Hundred [Verses]). The later Madhyamaka the Autocommentary on the Commentary on the philosopher Kamalaśīla (c. 740–795 ce) – famous Means of Knowledge]) and Prajñākaragupta in the history of Tibetan Buddhism as a proponent (Pramāṇavārtti­kabhāṣya [Commentary on the of gradual enlightenment in the debate of Bsam Commentary on the Means of Knowledge] or yas (c. 792–794 ce), which led to royal support of Vārttikālaṃkāra [Ornament of the Commentary]). the Indian form of Buddhism over the Chinese – composed influential commentaries on his teacher Śāntarakṣita’s works Madhyamakālaṃkāra (Orna- Commentaries and Translation ment of the Middle Way; a synthesis of Yogācāra and Madhyamaka thought) and Tattvasaṃgraha On the borders of the Indian cultural sphere, Bud- (Summary of Truth; a comprehensive doxography dhists using non‐Indian languages translated Indian of Buddhist and non‐Buddhist schools of thought). commentarial works: the Chinese Saṃgītiparyāya (For a detailed survey of Indian Madhyamaka litera- (Stache‐Rosen, 1968), the Tocharian Vinayavibhaṅga ture, see Seyfort Ruegg, 1981.) (Explication of the Discipline; Pinault, 2008, 61–88), The points of departure for Yogācāra commentarial and the numerous Tibetan Mahāyāna sūtra com- activity were Mahāyāna sūtras as well as foundational mentaries discussed above may serve as examples. philosophical treatises. Vasubandhu, for instance, But part and parcel of the general translation activ- on the one hand composed the Daśabhūmikabhāṣya ity of Buddhist literature from Indian to non‐Indian on the Daśabhūmikasūtra (see above) and on the languages was the production of new commentarial other the Madhyāntavibhāgabhāṣya (Commentary material in the recipient languages. In its simplest 416 Commentary: Overview form, these were glosses supplied by a translator or mapping of the early Indian commentaries) is geyi member of a translation team to elucidate difficult (格義), the explanation of numerical lists in Indian terms or justify translation choices; at the other end, Buddhist texts through comparable texts in the these were accomplished literary compositions in Chinese classics (Mair, 2010). This procedure was their own right that would come to shape the new introduced in the late 3rd century by the Chinese Buddhist idioms of the recipient languages. teacher Zhu Faya (竺法雅) for those unfamiliar with There is little doubt that the genre of commen- the Indian literary list style, but it stayed ephemeral tary went hand in hand with translation, as for and was already denounced by Zhu Faya’s disciple instance in China when a foreign master elucidated Dao’an (道安; 312–385 ce). a text in the course of expounding it for translation, The next stage of development, in which the this sometimes being a public event. This proce- exegetical material has assumed the character of dure on the one hand provides a good example of an independent commentarial text, is illustrated by how commentarial glosses may have entered a text Dao’an’s Renben yusheng jing zhu (人本欲生經註; and on the other hand emphasizes the inevitable Commentary on the Great Discourse on Conditioned role of translation itself as commentary, since any Arising; T. 1693), a commentary on An Shigao’s rendering of words from one language into another *Mahānidānasūtra (Great Discourse on Causes; involves decisions about meaning. T. 14) translation (Zürcher, 1959, 186, 388n33), and The earliest Chinese translation procedure as by the anonymous Shi’er men chan jing 十二門禪 attested in colophons involved a master (usually 經 (Discourse on the 12 Gates of Meditation) from Indian or Central Asian) providing both koushou the Kongōji manuscript, a commentary on An (口授; oral translation) and koujie (口解; oral expla- Shigao’s Shi’er men jing (十二門經; Discourse on nation; Zürcher, 1959, 31). Three products of this the 12 Gates; Zacchetti, 2003; Nattier, 2008, 65). (On procedure from the 2nd and 3rd centuries ce are Dao’an’s commentarial style and exegetical theory, still extant: An Shigao’s (安世高; fl. c. 150–170 ce) see Zürcher, 1959, 187, 191–192; and on the style of Ahan koujie shi’er yinyuan jing (阿含口解十二因 these zhu [註] commentaries in general, see Kanno, 緣經; Discourse on the Oral Explanation of the 2002; Mayer, 2004, 167–168). 12 Causal Links in the Canon; T. 1508) contains a A third style of early Chinese commentary, based separate collection of glosses (Zürcher, 1959, 31, on Indian precedents, is the addition of illustra- 330n69) that constitutes a “record of oral expla- tive stories to early canonical verse texts, which nations delivered by An Shigao to his students” we see in Zhi Qian’s Arthapada (Word of Meaning; (Zacchetti, 2004; Nattier, 2008, 63–64). The Yinchiru i.e. Arthavarga) translation Yizu jing (義足經; Dis- jing zhu (T. 1694) associated with Kang Senghui course on the Word of Meaning; T. 198; Bapat, 1951; 康僧會 (fl. c. 220–240/260 or 250–280 ce) is based on Nattier, 2008, 134) and in the Dharmapada version a root text by An Shigao (T. 603; see above; Zürcher, Faju piyu jing (法句譬喻經; Discourse on the Word 1959, 54; Nattier, 2008, 152). Similarly, the Anban of the Doctrine and Similes; T. 211) attributed to Faju shouyi jing zhu (安般守意經注; Commentary on (法炬) and Fali (法立; fl. 290–306 ce), which is based the Discourse on Mindfulness in Breathing; T. 602) on a root text (T. 210; trans. 224 ce) by Weiqinan associated with Kang Senghui is based on a root text (維祇難) revised by Zhi Qian (fl. 222–252 ce; Zürcher, (the *Ānāpānasmṛtisūtra [Discourse on Mindfulness 1959, 47–4855). in Breathing]) in An Shigao style recently rediscov- ered in an ancient Chinese manuscript brought to Japan and preserved in the Kongōji temple in Osaka Bibliography (Nattier, 2008, 60–61; Zacchetti, 2007) and con- tains a mix of text and explanation (Zürcher, 1959, Assmann, A., & J. Assmann, Kanon und Zensur, Munich, 31, 53, 54, 330n68). With these three texts, one may 1987. compare the glosses inserted in chapter 1 of the Da Balbir, N., “Les lecteurs jaina śvetāmbara face à leur canon,” mingdu jing (大明度經; Great Discourse on the Per- in: G. Colas & G. Gerschheimer, eds., Écrire et transmettre fection of Understanding; T. 225) associated with en Inde classique, Paris, 2009, 43–62. Kang Senghui and Zhi Qian (支謙; fl. c. 220–250 ce), Balk, M., “Untersuchungen zum Udânavarga. Unter Berück­ sichtigung mittelindischer Parallelen und eines tibeti- the root text of which consists of a mixture of scrip- schen Kommentars,” diss., University of Bonn, 1988. tural quotations from meditation and Mahāyāna Bapat, P.V., Arthapada Sutra: Spoken by the Buddha: Trans- texts (Zürcher, 1959, 54, 338n162). A special exe- lated by the Upāsaka Che‐Kien under the Wu Dynasty (222– getical procedure (reminiscent of the categorial 230 ad), Santiniketan, 1951. Commentary: Overview 417 Baums, S., “Gandhāran Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Kanno, H., “Chinese Buddhist Sutra Commentaries of the Manuscript Type,” in: J.B. Quenzer, D. Bondarev & Early Period,” ARIRIAB 6, 2002, 301–320. J.‐U. Sobisch, eds., Manuscript Cultures: Mapping the Field, Kramer, J., “Innovation and the Role of Intertextuality in the Berlin, 2014a, 183–225. Pañcaskandhaka and Related Yogācāra Works,” JIABS 36, Baums, S., “Truth and Scripture in Early Buddhism: Catego- 2013. rial Reduction as Exegetical Method in Ancient Gandhāra Krasser, H., “How to Teach a Buddhist Monk to Refute the and Beyond,” in: T. Sen, ed., Buddhism across Asia: Net- Outsiders: Text‐Critical Remarks on Some Works by works of Material, Intellectual and Cultural Exchange, Bhāviveka,” JRBTRD 51, 2011, 49–76. Singapore, 2014b, 19–38. Lamotte, É.P.M., “La critique d’interprétation dans le boud- Bodhi, Bhikkhu, The Discourse on the All‐Embracing Net of dhisme,” AIPHOS 9, 1949, 341–361; ET: “The Assessment of Views: The Brahmajāla Sutta and Its Commentarial Exege- Textual Interpretation in Buddhism,” in: D.S. Lopez Jr., ed., sis, Kandy, 1978. Buddhist Hermeneutics, Honolulu, 1988, 11–27. Bond, G.D., “The Word of the Buddha”: The Tipiṭaka and Its Lamotte, É.P.M., “La critique d’authenticité dans le boud- Interpretation in Theravada Buddhism, Colombo, 1982. dhisme,” in: India Antiqua: A Volume of Oriental Studies Braarvig, J., Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra, Oslo, 1993. Presented by His Friends and Pupils to Jean Philippe Vogel, Carter, J.R., & M. Palihawadana, The Dhammapada: A New C.I.E. on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of his Doc- English Translation with the Pali Text and the First English torate, publ. Kern Institute, Leiden, 1947, 213–222; ET: “The Translation of the Commentary’s Explanation of the Verses Assessment of Textual Authenticity in Buddhism,” BSR 1, with Notes: With Notes Translated from Sinhala Sources 1983–84, 4–15. and Critical Textual Comments, New York, 1987. Lévi, S., “Note sur des manuscrits sanscrits provenant de Conze, E., The Prajñāpāramitā Literature, Tokyo, 21978. Bamiyan (Afghanistan) et de Gilgit (Cachemire),” JA 220, Cox, C., “Gāndhārī Kharoṣṭhī Manuscripts: Exegetical Texts,” 1932, 1–45. in: P. Harrison & J.-U. Hartmann, eds., From Birch Bark to Lopez, D.S., The Heart Sūtra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Commentaries, Albany, 1988. Research: Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Mair, V., “What is Geyi, after All?,” in: A.K.L. Chan & Y.‐K. Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 15–19 Lo, eds., Philosophy and Religion in Early Medieval China, 2009, Vienna, 2014, 35–49. Albany, 2010, 227–264. Davidson, R.M., “An Introduction to the Standards of Scrip- Mayer, A., “Commentarial Literature,” in: R.E. Buswell, ed., tural Authority in Indian Buddhism,” in: R.E. Buswell, ed., Encyclopedia of Buddhism, vol. I, New York, 2004, 166–169. Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, Honolulu, 1990, 291–325. McDaniel, J.T., Gathering Leaves and Lifting Words: Histo- Dietz, S., O. Qvarnström & P. Skilling, “A Fragment of a Com- ries of Buddhist Monastic Education in Laos and Thailand, mentary(?) on a Hitherto Unknown Recension of the Seattle, 2008. Mahāsamājasūtra,” in: J. Braarvig, ed., Buddhist Manu- Mori, S. (森祖道), Pāribukkyō chūshaku bunken no kenkyū: scripts, vol. III, Oslo, 2006, 195–206. attakatānojōzabuteki yōsō (パーリ仏教註釈文献の研究: Elverskog, J., Uygur Buddhist Literature, Turnhout, 1997. アッタカターの上座部的様相), Tokyo, 1984. Emmerick, R.F., & P.O. Skjærvø, “Buddhist Literature in Kho- Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu, The Piṭaka‐Disclosure (Peṭakopadesa) tanese and Tumshuqese,” in: E. Yarshater, ed., Encyclopæ- according to Kaccāna Thera, London, 1964. dia Iranica, vol. IV, London, 1990, 499–505. Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu, The Guide (Netti‐ppakaraṇaṁ) accord- Falk, H., & S. Karashima, “A ­First-Century Prajñāpāramitā ing to Kaccāna Thera, London, 1962. Manuscript from Gandhāra – Parivarta 5 (Texts from the Nance, R.F., Speaking for Buddhas, New York, 2012. Split Collection 2),” SDKBKKN 16, 2013, 97–169. Nattier, J., A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Transla- Falk, H., & S. Karashima, “A First‐Century Prajñāpāramitā tions: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three King- Manuscript from Gandhāra – Parivarta 1 (Texts from the doms 三國 Periods, Tokyo, 2008. Split Collection 1),” ARIRIAB 15, 2012, 19–61. Pinault, G.‐J., Chrestomathie tokharienne: Textes et gram- Freiberger, O., Der Orden in der Lehre. Zur religiösen Deutung maire, Leuven, 2008. des Saṅgha im frühen Buddhismus, Wiesbaden, 2000. Salomon, R., Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhāra: The Ganeri, J., The Lost Age of Reason: Philosophy in Early Modern British Library Kharoṣṭhī Fragments, Seattle, 1999. India 1450–1700, Oxford, 2011. Samtani, N.H., The Arthaviniścaya-sūtra and Its Commentary, Guthmüller, B., “Commentary,” Brill’s New Pauly: Classical Patna, 1971. Tradition, vol. I, Leiden, 2006, 999–1002, 2013. Sander, L., “Buddhist Literature in Central Asia,” in: Hinüber, O. von, A Handbook of Pāli Literature, Berlin, 1996. G.P. Malalasekera & J. Dhirasekera, eds., Encyclopaedia of Honjō Yoshifumi (本庄良文), Kusharonchū Upāikā no Buddhism, vol. IV, Colombo, 1981, 52–75. kenkyū (俱舎論註ウパーイカーの研究), Tokyo, 2014. Schmidt, K.T., “Zur Erforschung der tocharischen Literatur. Honjō Yoshifumi, Kusharon shoe agon zenpyō (倶舎論所依 Stand und Aufgaben,” in: B. Schlerath, ed., Tocharisch. 阿含全表), Kyoto, 1984. Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Jaini, P., Abhidharmadīpa with Vibhāṣāprabhāvṛtti, Patna, Berlin, September 1990, Reykjavik, 1994, 239–283. 21977. Schoening, J.D., “Sūtra Commentaries in Tibetan Transla- Jhaḷakîkar, B., Nyâyakośa or Dictionary of the Technical Terms tion,” in: J.I. Cabezón & R.R. Jackson, eds., Tibetan Litera- of the Nyâya Philosophy, Bombay, 1893. ture: Studies in Genre, Ithaca NY, 1996, 111–124. 418 Commentary: Overview Schoening, J.D., The Śālistamba Sūtra and Its Indian Com- Wilson, J.B., “Tibetan Commentaries on the Indian Śāstras,” mentaries, Vienna, 1995. in: J.I. Cabezón & R.R. Jackson, eds., Tibetan Literature: Seyfort Ruegg, D., The Literature of the Madhyamaka School Studies in Genre, Ithaca NY, 1996, 125–137. of Philosophy in India, Wiesbaden, 1981. Wogihara, U., Spuṭârthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā, Tokyo, Silk, J.A., “Remarks on the Kāśyapaparivarta Commentary,” 1932–1936. in: M. Straube et al., eds., Pāsādikadānaṁ: Festschrift for Yakup, A., Prajñāpāramitā Literature in Old Uyghur, Turn- Bhikkhu Pāsādika, Marburg, 2009, 381–397. hout, 2010. Simonsson, N., Indo‐tibetische Studien. Die Methoden der Zacchetti, S., “Teaching Buddhism in Han China: A Study of tibetischen Übersetzer, untersucht im Hinblick auf die the Ahan koujie shi’er yinyuan jing T 1508 Attributed to An Bedeutung ihrer Übersetzungen für die Sanskritphilologie, Shigao,” ARIRIAB 7, 2004, 197–224. Uppsala, 1957. Zacchetti, S., “The Rediscovery of Three Early Buddhist Scrip- Slaje, W., “Der Sanskrit‐Kommentar,” in: M. Quisinsky & tures on Meditation: A Preliminary Analysis of the Fo shuo P. Walter, eds., Kommentarkulturen. Die Auslegung zentra- shi’er men jing, the Fo shuo jie shi’er men jing: Translated ler Texte der Weltreligionen: ein vergleichender Überblick, by An Shigao and Their Commentary Preserved in the Cologne, 2007, 69–97. Newly Found Kongō‐ji Manuscript,” ARIRIAB 6, 2003, Stache‐Rosen, V., Dogmatische Begriffsreihen im älteren 251–299. Buddhismus, vol. II: Das Saṅgītisūtra und sein Kommentar Zacchetti, S., “An Early Chinese Translation Corresponding Saṅgītiparyāya, Berlin, 1968. to Chapter 6 of the Peṭakopadesa: An Shigao’s Yin chi ru Tubb, G.A., & E.R. Boose, Scholastic Sanskrit: A Handbook for jing T 603 and Its Indian Original: A Preliminary Survey,” Students, New York, 2007. BSOAS 65, 2002a, 74–98. Verhagen, P.C., A History of Grammatical Literature in Tibet, Zacchetti, S., “Some Remarks on the ‘Peṭaka Passages’ in the vol. I: Transmission of the Canonical Literature, Leiden, Da zhidu lun and Their Relation to the Pāli Peṭakopadesa,” 1994. ARIRIAB 5, 2002b, 67–85. Walter, M.N., Sogdians and Buddhism, Philadelphia, 2006. Zürcher, E., The Buddhist Conquest of China, Leiden, 1959. Willemen, C., B. Dessein & C. Cox, Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism, Leiden, 1998. Stefan Baums